[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Sail numbers
- To: Brian Mansur <bmansur@oc.edu>
- Subject: RE: Sail numbers
- From: Kevin C Houston <hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
- Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 11:50:52 -0600 (CST)
- cc: bmansur <bmansur@oc.edu>, David <David@InterWorld.com>, jim <jim@bogie2.bio.purdue.edu>, KellySt <KellySt@aol.com>, kgstar <kgstar@most.magec.com>, lparker <lparker@destin.gulfnet.com>, rddesign <rddesign@wolfenet.com>, stevev <stevev@efn.org>, "T.L.G.vanderLinden" <T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl>, zkulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
- In-Reply-To: <31485BC8@mainpobox.oc.edu>
Brian:
> >Kevin:
> >5) Thermal load is a big problem. 750 KW on .05 Kg is a big worry.
> >Tim:
> >Hmmm, this sounds troublesome, maybe we need to decrease the density of
> >the
> >beam.
> >If you've calculated it could you add some formulas so that I can check it?
>
> Brian:
> If you decrease the density of the beam, you must increase the width of the
> sail to compensate for lost thrust. Or you can just lower the weight of
> your ship. None of these options are apealing.
>
But if you increase the radius of the sail, then it's mass goes up. if
you decrease the areal density, then the limiting energy goes down.
Tim or Rex, what is the equilibrium temp of the sail?
Kevin